MY STAND

Yesterday they took two of my friends from ten years back. Teresa Kok, a committed Catholic Christian, used to visit me regularly in my TTDI office when she was still uncertain about her political journey. RPK, a committed Muslim, and I were together in the early days of the reformasi movement which eventually gave birth to KeADILan. (I have been told that last night earlier TV clips showed me together with him when news of his arrest was telecast. If so, I am honoured.)

 

I am on my knees for them and the poor Sin Chew senior reporter (and un-named others who will be taken in). I want all who know me to know that I am honoured to know RPK and Teresa.

 

I am honoured to be aligned with the new politics (not just after March 08 when things looked good and it has become respectable and fashionable) but right from the very start when things looked dismal and pitiful for the opposition; when many Christian friends said things about me. As a Christian I don’t follow man’s dictates. I exercise my conscience before God. He alone is my Judge. He knows where I am wrong or where I am right. He alone can forgive and restore me. But I know that this side of heaven, I have no luxury of choosing between moral absolutes, only between the lesser of two evils.

 

I have made my choice more than ten years ago and I have come to terms with my choice. In the case of individual politicians, I have given prayerful support and counsel to several across the parliamentary divide; I will always be a honest friend to politicians on either side. But in the case of political philosophy and praxis, I am solidly Pakatan Rakyat. 

 

In the face of the ongoing ISA operations, I make my stand clear and unequivocal. Let it not be said that I am ashamed of my KeADILan roots. There has not been nor will there be any hedging on my part. I have taken my stand for better or worse. My friends (or foes) have a right to know where I am. This is no place or time for neutrality on the principle issues of the Malaysian Agenda. Neutrality in partisan politics is fine but Christians cannot continue to sit on the fence or worse still in their armchair. Now we have all got to respectively decide where we stand on the issues which will not just affect today’s Malaysia but your children’s Malaysia. 

 

I now write my personal blog here where I speak my mind and share my thoughts without reference or approval from anybody else.

 

Thank you.

Warmly,

Goh Keat Peng

 

 

ARE WE SAYING THAT MPs ARE WITHOUT SOUL AND CONSCIENCE?

 

Poor things. To hear people talk about them, our Malaysian MPs must have no soul or conscience to speak of. They ran for public office under a partisan political banner. Once elected, they are being whipped into a narrow corridor of interest reflecting only their political party’s wishes. By the party’s wishes, we are not necessarily talking about the tenets and spirit of the party’s elections manifesto which promise voters what the party will do, win or lose. It is not always about such lofty and noble things. There are times when MPs are being expected to serve the self-interest of certain key party leaders when they table legislative bills which sometimes seem more calculated to advance their own leadership agenda than the wider good of the people.

Each time a vote comes up in parliament, the Party Whip dictates which way MPs are to vote. Their personal conscience don’t come into the equation. MPs must vote the way their party decides not how they think and feel about an issue.  So, for instance, if the powers that be urgently want a DNA legislation or an amendment to allow the Elections Commissioner to serve an extra six months in office, as long as they have a majority of MPs in the House, such a law will be passed. The Party Whip is effective in guaranteeing such results every time.  

Thus, in today’s political climate when there is much talk of late about morality, let it be said that not all things that are lawful are necessarily moral. Neither is there absolute morality in anything that involves human beings. For all our noble ambitions and wish to occupy the moral high road, the choice is not between two moral absolutes but the lesser of two evils.  

Simply because the powers that be have the legal means to do what they purpose to do does not mean that what they have done is always moral. Are legislations that brought about such draconian laws as the ISA, OSA,  and the like morally justifiable?

How is it that MPs or ADUNs who otherwise are people-friendly, intelligent and reasonable would vote to whittle away religious freedom including that of their own respective religions? The answer is the Party Whip. They are required to vote the party line.

I don’t say that an elected official is always free to vote whichever way is to his or her liking. Some regard must be given to party stands otherwise why stand for elections under a particular party? However, in critical times, a human being including the MP or ADUN must vote his or her conscience. That is the moral thing to do. As a voter, who or what do I vote for? Is it 100% for the party? My own answer is NO. I also voted for the candidate as a person whose demeanour, personal stand and instincts are trustworthy. Would I vote for an MP or ADUN who votes blindly 100% along party lines? Absolutely NOT. How can I trust someone who never stands up for anything but his party and is never capable of standing up at times to what his party wants and thereby exercise his personal conscience?  

These days there is so much talk about the morality (or immorality) of parliamentary cross-overs. The argument goes like this: if the MP is elected under the banner of a partisan political party, then he or she is duty-bound to stay with the party in whose name he or she has been elected an MP. It seems a very reasonable argument. But in effect it is one more nail in the coffin of the MP’s personal conscience.

What March 08 and August 26 have ushered in is that there are new choices for the Malaysian nation and new thinking on the part of Malaysian voters. A new political realignment is in process. Clearly there are unconscionable acts being committed by the powers that be which I don’t wish my MP or ADUN to endorse. Nor should bigotry from any quarter be condoned.

So now, my MP or ADUN wants to cross over to the other side. I have no problems if others come up with the best moral means available whereby my MP or ADUN can complete this crossover. Let those (many of whom are my friends) who have the correct formula come forward. Anything which is workable will be welcome. But don’t let anyone condemn my MP or ADUN for wanting to crossover. Only he or she can discern his or her own conscience. He or she has the right to exercise that conscience. Especially in this case whereby the whole force of the weaponry which the powers that be possess will be trained on him or her. I for one will admire the person’s courage, moral resolve and love for nation to take that long, lonely road leaving a sitting government to a still unknown future.

What this great crossover will do is merely to ensure that a sitting government will fall. This in itself is worth achieving because it sends a message to the incumbent as well as all future Malaysian governments that you cannot fool all the people all the time.  It does not beg the question as to how and when and who will form the next government.

Of course I know whom I want to form the next government because I support their agenda for the nation. But the formation of a government is a second step. I am writing about the necessary first step and that is that sufficient numbers in the right mix of MPs will courageously say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and exercise their consciences to step out of the old politics into the new politics.

I think some encouragement for them will be in order. 

 

PURPOSELY COINCIDENTAL

Some people seem to have a serious problem of saying sorry. But I have no qualms in saying sorry for indulging in my habit as a former English Language teacher to define two words which is essential vocabulary for followers of Malaysian politics.  Admittedly, to some this is bothersome. But here goes: “Coincidental” means “happening by or resulting from coincidence; by chance such as a coincidental meeting.” On the other hand, “purposely” means “intentionally; deliberately as in He tripped me purposely; with the particular purpose specified; expressly as in I wore that suit purposely to make a good impression.”

Put these two words together and we have PURPOSELY COINCIDENTAL which is another example of an “oxymoron” which means “an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect.” That is, the coincidence is purposely planned!

Many such examples of purposely coincidental events are found in Malaysian politics of late. One such case is when the accuser of the opposition candidate swore by the Quran that his allegation is nothing but the truth one day before Nomination Day of the recent by-election. But of course, said he, it was planned without thought of the by-election. The timing was purely coincidental.  

So was the sudden drop of fifteen sen in petrol price during the by-election campaign despite no less a national leader than the PM saying that such a drop should not be expected.

So was the DNA Bill swiftly passed in the recent parliament session when many MPs were campaigning at the site of the by-election.   

And now, the Back Benchers MP trip which coincides (that is, is coincidental) with the fasting month and the commemoration of the 45^th year of the birth of Malaysia.

So if you are an MP from Sabah and Sarawak, this most important study trip will take precedence over your presence in marking September 16 in your respective state capitals and/or constituencies.

So if you are a Muslim MP, the fasting month is the best time for overseas travel and will not pose special problems for religious duties to be performed. Besides the constituents with whom you have been scheduled to break fast with will understand the sudden cancellation and loyally wait for you next year.

Please be sure to hand your international passports for the purpose of making your travel bookings.  (Strangely, for all the countless travels I have made to all five continents never once was I required to submit my international passport  as a requirement for making my travel bookings. But then of course I am after all just a small-fry and have no knowledge what the big people like our YBs have to do to get their travel bookings done.)

These are minor coincidences, I beg your pardon, I mean inconveniences which the average MP should be well able to cope with. Duty calls and to the study tour you must go. “It is an agricultural study trip. We are looking at how technology is being used to increase farm output. When we return, we can use knowledge we gained for our budget debates,” said the chief organiser.

However, for a purposeful trip such as “agriculture study”, it seems rather strange that as of September 4th the destination has yet to be ascertained when the travel itself will take place no later than mid-September. Up to four different destinations have been variously mentioned: New Zealand, Australia, China and Taiwan. Well I guess the gracious hosts in any number of countries will no doubt be able to make the necessary arrangements in a jiffy and ensure a truly educational tour.

Well then, here’s wishing our YBs a happy and fruitful journey! Now and again leaving the country and seeing other people’s country can be refreshing and eventful. Here’s to purposely coincidental happenings! It is the way to go. For the organisers, that’s better than leaving things to chance, I beg your pardon, I mean change.

 

 

PENNYWISE, POUND FOOLISH

In days gone by when school textbooks were English both in language and origin, we were taught the intricacies of monetary values in terms of pound, shilling and pence.  To be pennywise, pound foolish is to be senwise but ringgit foolish which is to mean we could be so taken up about  being overly concerned or “cautious with small amounts of money, but careless with larger amounts …” So if a person  “spends very little on food during the week, then blows all his money drinking on the weekends”, we may say that he really is penny-wise, pound-foolish.

This idiomatic saying is about getting the bigger picture and understanding better what exactly it is we wish to achieve.

We of course have many examples of this here in our own backyard. For example, let us say  I want some people to go away from the country and leave the whole country to me and my own kind. If this is my objective and without thinking things through I just say to them, “Go back to the Timbuktu you have come from!”,  the effect may in fact be the opposite of what I had set out to achieve. These people’s reaction would more likely be to dig themselves deeper in and stay put. Instead of turning the heat on the people I had targetted, in effect, the heat will now be on me. And that is why those who behave in this way usually have to leave the country themselves. Ironically, those they had asked to leave stay put and instead they themselves have had to leave the country for a time. Thus, not only have I failed to achieve what I had set out to do, the situation is now worse for me than it was before.  

Take another common example. If my objective is to get others to embrace my own relgious philosophy and practices, it would be “pennywise, pound foolish” for me to apply brute force to stop them from discussing some ramifications of my religion, for example, on their social life. In fact, it is only when others discuss my religion that I will have the opportunity to clarify some common misconceptions they may have of it. To ban others from talking about my religion will have a counter effect as many parents are finding out when they use their perceived authority and try to force their religion on their children in a myriad of misguided ways.

Today, there is a most critical issue for us Malaysians to consider. The time has come when we are asked what kind of nation we wish to be: to have more of the same or to effect change for the better. The time has come for us to set ourselves on the path to fundamental changes in the way we define who a Malaysian is, how the nation’s wealth is to be shared, how our children will be educated, how government contracts will be awarded, how we prioritise government spending, how we conduct our elections, how the police and judiciary should function, how ACA should prioritise who they should target their investigations on (only the small or especially on the big fishes?), how to restore pride to all citizens regarding their nation, how to listen and pay heed to the people’s cries, how to integrate east and west Malaysia, how to have freedom of information, how to rid ourselves of the abominable laws and the shameless ways in which they have been used against perceived “opponents” of the state. The list goes on.

In considering change, I must not be so naive as to expect that there will be no inconvenience of any sort to my normal routine. I must understand that change can, in the transition period, cause some hardship and pain. In choosing change, I must give up something relatively smaller in order to gain something much bigger and worthwhile. Some relative sacrifices have to be made. When I have my house painted, some furniture must be moved, the place will be a mess, and smell of new paint may irritate my nostrils. Change cannot be had without some tolerance for some things I normally will not care for.  There may be some uncertainties and no matter how well managed, the markets may be nervous. Some effects will be worse than others.

In facing this, I must not turn inward and instinctively become even more inept in managing myself and my instincts and my resources and fall victim to the “pennywise, pound foolish” effect. To have the pounds, I need to give up my pennies. The higher goals, the bigger good must be my focus. For that, I welcome the coming change.

 

CIVILISING OUR POLITICS

My merdeka wish is for civility to infuse, enlighten and become the political culture of Malaysia. Going by what the nation saw and heard in the recent by-election, shame and disgust filled me and thoughts of merdeka could not have been further from my heart and mind. A free nation cannot have its top politicians and national leaders behave this way. 

 

This low-class, low-down, x-rated campaign does not articulate merdeka. It does not represent Malay culture and religion. It is not Malaysian. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

 

This kind of campaign conduct is shamelessly and irresponsibly based on racist sentiments, malice, character assassination, hearsay, and even faulty theology. More than maligning the rival for which it was intended,  such a campaign also adversely affects national unity as well as the good name of the country. It must be totally and completely rejected and denounced for the cheap politicking that it is.

 

Ironically, this awful kind of campaigning favoured neither the slandered nor the slanderers. Some observers may argue that both sides were guilty of the same practices and that both sides should be responsible to clean up their act. That is fair.

 

But election campaigns do make a difference to how voters make their decisions as to which candidate they would vote for. Otherwise why campaign at all? Therefore, I believe that the result of the recent by-election does reflect to a substantial degree how the respective campaigns were conducted. It is not rocket science, but in this sense, it is clear to me that the side which only won one-third of the votes cast did far more negative and sub-standard campaigning than the side which won two-thirds of the votes.

 

How did one side win two-thirds of the votes? How was their campaign different so as to achieve such a substantially different result? Among other reasons, to a good extent, the voters must have felt that the eventual winners were much more positive and had promoted an agenda which they could embrace and which they believe would lead to desirable change. This was reflected in the extraordinary burst of jubilation that followed the announcement of the results. True their numbers were boosted by outstation supporters but the locals celebrated the end result and it was obvious to the rest of the country that that was the result they wanted. There is ample evidence that that was the result that substantial numbers of people in the rest of the country also wanted.

 

May it be that this will prove to be the watershed for the civilising of Malaysian political culture. For this to happen, all sides must take stock of their handiwork at the recent by-elections. For their own benefit, they need to take a long and hard look at their conduct and learn from their mistakes in order to put up a more civil show and a classier act from here on. Henceforth, they should aspire to win elections by the quality and superiority of the agenda they propose rather than by unfairly running down the character of their rivals with unproven allegations.

 

Their demeanour in parliament must be of a much higher standard. They must focus on critical issues of nation-building, just policies and good govenance beneficial to all the people rather than insulting one another and worse still, insulting the intelligence of their voters.     

 

This will do the nation proud. This is what the rakyat deserves. This is what merdeka should bring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOVING ON NEUTRAL?

Life is about involvement. Yes, there is legitimacy in leisure, rest, sleep, even standing still. But only in the context of work and involvement. When Jesus said, “Come unto me … and rest”, he was speaking to those “who labour and are heavy laden”.

 

In the face of this, it is curious to say the least why the Christian leadership in Malaysia seems so slow, reluctant and unwilling to address issues of nation-building, social justice and governance. Why is it that Christian leaders feel that silence seems always to speak louder than words?  

 

Yes indeed it is written in the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is “a time to keep silence”. And in a sense, many leaders, and members of their congregations and other human beings in general, wish that at times they had kept their views or words to themselves. But in the biblical text this is immediately followed by  “a time to speak”. It is never meant to be a matter of “either or”. There is a time to keep silence and a time to speak.

 

Granted there is a risk. One can speak wrongly in terms of timing, tone, and content. In speaking out on something, for sure one can be misunderstood or one’s saying can be taken out of context or misquoted. But then there is also risk involved if we always keep silent. Silence can also be interpreted or misinterpreted.

 

In fact, the Christian leadership in the country has been so pronounced and prolonged in their silence that the signal is sent out LOUD & CLEAR to Malaysians of the various faiths and communities that the Christian Church is uninterested in the affairs of state, in lending its voice to issues of good governance.

 

In fact, other Malaysians have noted that the Christian churches are only interested in looking after themselves: their places of worship, building renovations, their rights, their bibles, what words they can use, and their burial grounds.

 

In fact, in pleading its understandable non-partisanship in politics, Christian churches have seemingly also held its peace and would not care to speak on critical matters concerning the equitable distribution of the nation’s resources, the status of state institutions, the state of the judiciary.

 

In the peninsula, we will soon be observing our 51^st year of independence. Shortly, the auditor-general will be publishing its annual report. Will Malaysians get to hear words of wisdom and maturity from Christian leaders? Will there be Christian voices coming from recognised leaders instead of more of the same from small fry’s such as myself? Where are the John the Baptists of today? Where are the voices in the wilderness?

 

Why the silence? Are we Christians saying a Christian voice on national issues is insignificant, unimportant, unnecessary? Is preaching within church walls all that Christian leaders are called to be doing? It is alright if what the Christian Church says is eventually rejected by Malaysians out there. Better to be heard and rejected than not heard from at all.

 

Yet some churches feel the injustice when the home ministry sent show cause letters to Herald, The Catholic Weekly and Catholic Asian News (CAN) faulting them for not keeping strictly to narrow religious themes. But what is the use of a licence to speak if on the whole Christian leaders do not wish to speak and hasn’t been speaking in the first place? This terrible silence only gives credence to the home ministry’s interpretation that the two Catholic periodicals are the exception not the norm of Christian practice. Therefore they could be isolated and dictated to with inappropriate state attempts at defining what is Christian and what is not.

 

I, small fry though I am, dare say that in the main, today’s Christian churches keep silent because they fear to offend those who seemingly have power over them. I dare say that Christian churches keep silent not necessarily just through understandable prudence but that we have become cowards. I dare say that Christian churches no longer serve as conscience of the faith but may have tended to become pleasers of men.

 

There are times when we are called upon to be silent for the sake of God’s kingdom. That I am afraid is not the same thing as hesitation to speak for our own sake.

 

The neutral gear is engaged to keep the vehicle from unintentionally moving when it is inappropriate for it to move. The Christian Church cannot move on neutral. Neutrality is a strategy. It is intentional. It should not become a hiding place. Or an excuse to stay still or keep silent for an indeterminate period of time.

 

We need men and women leading churches to have the courage to engage either the forward or reverse gear to effect desirable movement for God’s sake and the sake of the poor and voiceless whom God has sent us to. 

 

We also need men and women in the churches to tell their church leaders to get off their comfort zones and start acting as Christ’s ambassadors and speak the truth sometimes in righteous anger but always in love. For Christ’s sake speak up and state your stand!

 

 

 

 

 

 

THROWING-the-STONE

Apart from the Shot Put which is an Olympic sport which could be traced back to the games of Ancient Greece, the art of stone-throwing is not particularly a special skill requiring loads of talent and practice. Small boys and girls can throw stones quite naturally. Where stones are in supply, all it requires is that they bend their knees, retrieve the stone/s and then throw it at or to whatever target they have set for themselves. Like most things in life, of course a little practice will help you hit the target with better regularity.

 

Speaking of targets, of course the larger the target/s, both in size and number, the greater the likelihood of hitting them. 

 

There is a saying: “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!” A glass house is a dream target for stone throwers. With glass houses, the level of stone-throwing skill can be reduced quite drastically. You could hardly miss doing harm to glass houses. Throw it any which way, the stone will do the damage. As many of us have unfortunately found out, an entire windscreen can be shattered by just one small stone which is catapulted from the wheel of the lorry travelling in front of us.  

 

These days, you need hardly turn the page in the newspapers to find that a lot of stones are being thrown in our country. In the ongoing XXIX Olympiad, no foreigner will be faulted if s/he misses the name of our country in the medal list. But we can point out to all who would listen: place one finger on the top of the medal list, run it down, turn the page and start again, slow down and somewhere in the middle you will find for real a silver medal awarded to Malaysia. However, any stranger in the land will in next to no time discover that the sport of Throwing-the-Stone is Malaysia’s favourite game played by a group of competitors divided into two teams: Team G and Team O.

 

Any follower of the game will soon see that in this game, Team O has fewer stones than Team G. The reason being that Team G has access to all the stones they care to have whereas Team O could only pass the hat around and afford to obtain and equip themselves with a few stones. But then, as the game progresses, any fair-minded spectator will cry foul against Team O as they see the gross advantage they have over Team G in the matter of targets. In fact, Team O seems to have an insurmountable advantage when it comes to targets. They could throw their much fewer stones any which way and bang they will effortlessly hit not just one but many targets all at once all the time. 

 

Under the circumstances, the team with fewer stones but a lot more targets will want to do less throwing but concentrate their game-plan on selecting from the large pool of targets a few choice ones to hit. Theirs must be a strategy of hit-and-run. That is, they hit their selected targets then they need to keep moving always aware (or beware) that the other side with excess of stones in their hands will keep throwing and will at times hit something. Thus, Team O must always work to reduce further the targets they present to the other side. Because it is never nice to be hit.

 

On the other side, Team G with so many stones to spare will invariably do a lot more throwing. Indeed, they throw their stones quite liberally and indiscriminately. Understandably, they adopt a throw-all-the-time strategy but being short of targets they will have to make the most of the few targets with the result that if at first they miss, they must still aim at the same target even if they had been targetting it for ten long years.

 

Thus, Throwing-the-Stone can be quite tiresome for the spectators who have to endure the spectacle of seeing one team re-inventing the same target over and over again but despite their endeavours never seem to succeed to hit their at times invented and imaginary target and win the gold. Despite having the services of a renown coach for many many years. They then tried out a new coach but their fortunes took a turn for the worse during the last major Games in March 2008. These days they look like they are scouting for a new coach. 

 

The moral of the story:  Some have more, others have less but every team has some glass waiting to be shattered. Don’t try to get the people to fix their eyes on your opponents’ wrongdoing which could not total the number of fingers on both hands, when your own faults cover the sky and block the sun from our fair land. The more you speak of other people’s fault, the more you draw attention to your own vulnerabilities. In other words, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILL I SWEAR ON THE BIBLE?

In folk understanding of religion around the world, a superstitious regard for sacred books such as the bible can still be quite strong or influential. For example, some people in America did not quite believe that the astronauts actually walked on the moon. I came upon this posting on the internet: “Here is a video of some guy trying to get the astronauts to swear on the bible that they walked on the moon. Not a single one would do it. That kinda has to make you think a little. Granted this guy is obnoxious as hell but still, alot could be put to rest if they just did it.”

 

There is no common tradition among Christians to involve the bible in disputes or claims or to prove one’s innocence or honesty. Churches do not encourage such use of the bible. You don’t go to the priest or pastor in church and swear your innocence over the bible.

 

So if someone alleges (that is “declares without proof”) that I have done him or her wrong and insists that I should take an oath on the bible to prove my innocence, I would not. For very good reasons. I believe that in doing so I will in effect be promoting a superstitious sentiment about the bible. I will be encouraging the belief of people like those American folks that had the astronauts sworn on the bible it would have given credence to their claim of walking on the moon. I revere the bible as God’s word and its rightful place in the life of serious Christians is to reveal God’s will and truth and as such serve to guide my path and conduct. To use such a sacred book as the bible to satisfy someone else’s misguided superstition about it is only to cheapen and dishonour it.

 

Besides if I do so, I will be contributing to quite a comic situation. First, someone accuses me of wrongdoing and takes an oath on the bible saying that he is telling the truth. Then, pressure is exerted on me to reply by doing likewise, that is, I in turn must take an oath on the bible that I did no such wrong thing.

 

So if I do so, what will we have? Two persons both taking an oath on the bible that they were telling the truth. So all of you standing by witnessing this drama, what will you be thinking or doing? We all come back to square one, that is, each of you from the outside will still have to decide which one of the two of us is telling the truth.

 

It is one thing for some American folks to believe that had the astronauts been prepared to take an oath on the bible, they would have believed that the astronauts actually did walk on the moon. It is another thing altogether that in today’s Malaysia, we actually have some people, among whom are some very prominent people, promoting the idea that unless Anwar Ibrahim takes a solemn oath on the koran, his protestations of innocence will be suspect.

Is it too much to hope that a nation which aspires to VISION 2020, will have a more reliable way to measure truth than to take the word of a person on the basis that he has sworn on his choice of a sacred book?

In my earlier posting, HOW WE USE SACRED BOOKS, I wote: “The degree of honesty of any oath-taking is dependent on personal sincerity and a person’s fear of God rather than our hand on a mere book. By the mere act of my swearing on a bible, those who have legitimate grievances against me could draw little comfort or assurance since my swearing on a bible is a very easy thing for me to do. All it requires is a functioning limb rather than a functioning conscience.”

So despite the pressure, were I involved in this sorry drama, I would still not swear on the bible.

 

 

DON’T BE LOUD

With the spotlight on the venue of the forthcoming parliamentary by-election, the tempo of life in an otherwise ordinary neighbourhood has increased manifold. Urbanites who are pouring into the area in droves will greatly alarm and inconvenience the locals. No doubt some locals will benefit from increased business. For a time, some locals may bask in the focus placed on them.

But the inconvenience may soon far outweigh the benefits. The infrastructure of essential utilities- electricity, water- and roadways and accommodation are pushed to the fullest limit.

Everything in life has limits. Inconvenience will soon precipitate adverse reactions. This too can have impact on the by-elections results. Yes the Permatang Pauh carnival is built around a by-election. And in an election, registered voters are the people who matter. Only they can cast their vote. The battle will be won (or lost) not by which candidate will be able to garner the majority of supporters but by the number of registered voters who will cast their votes for a particular candidate.

With the number of non-voting supporters almost matching the number of registered voters, for sure the visitors will soon outlive their welcome. Irritate these registered voters and you may lose the election for your candidate.

If indeed this by-election will shape the direction of politics for the entire nation, supporters for the possible future leader of the nation should think quick and deep about their continued presence in PP. They need to be asked (and to ask themselves) what they are doing in PP. Will their continued presence add value to their candidate’s campaign? Do they have specific roles to play or are they there to take on the atmosphere or gain experience to put into their cv? A battle-field is not a place for by-standers or curiosity-seekers. Better for saudara candidate that excess humanity leave the scene to those who are there to do their work. Don’t consume electricity and water or occupy roadway and parking. Come away and follow the campaign through alternative media like Malaysia Today.

For those who remain to really assist the campaign, be very careful of how you tread in PP, how you talk, how you behave. Put on ordinary clothes, choose agreeable colours, always and in every situation be courteous, considerate and respectful of the locals. Beri laluan dan ruang kepada orang kampung. Adopt local customs and ways.

Yes we have an important message to convey to voters but do so in the fashion of the new politics we are trying to usher in. Don’t take on the bullyish, crude, arrogant, hooliganish manners of the outgoing regime. Reformasi is our goal but it is not just a word we shout on the street but a manner of behaving and dealing with the local folks. To be convinced they need to see us as reformed people with refined manners.

During the People’s Revolution of the Philippines, the most astounding scene which will be forever etched in my mind and heart, is that of the nuns- calm, steady, quiet, sure, confident and ever-smiling- going from soldier to soldier putting a stock of flower into the barrel of their guns.

Don’t give any one cause for concern. Don’t annoy anyone. Don’t alienate anyone. Don’t be arrogant. Don’t be rude. Don’t be domineering or dominating or obnoxious. In short, DON’T BE LOUD.

 

SLOW TO ANGER

In these uncertain times when no one of us can be blamed for thinking that the country is fast going under, there is wisdom in our respective sacred books which can help us to achieve justice and keep the peace. Regrettably, more often than not, religion is blamed for bringing about the opposite effects and the undesirable results.

The truth of the matter is that this undesirable situation we Malaysians find ourselves in is more often than not less to do with what the Sacred Books actually say but how we who read them interpret and apply them.

One of the more strange but unfortunately more common conduct of those of us who claim to be religious in our respective ways is the curious feeling we have of having to defend our respective faiths. This feeling that our beliefs and, by extension of that, our God need to be defended is a religious phenomenon found in all religious circles through all ages.

The notion that God needs vigorous defending by me who is but His mere creature is a psychologically mind-boggling concept and in my saner moments should show me how ridiculous I am and can be or have been.

Who needs to defend who? In many places in the Bible, it is clear that it is us human beings whom God has often found necessary to defend. When I am called upon to do any defending, the Bible speaks in such fashion: “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:16-17, Holy Bible). That is the defending I am to be doing.

Where the Bible may even speak of the idea of defending the faith, I take it that it means not physical action as such but through the civil and intellectual means of clarifying and explaining the faith as well as the spiritual means of healing and deliverance (from evil).

In religion of any and every kind, the tendency to be mistaken about how to “defend” or advocate for our respective religion of choice is ever present and alas, only too potent. When in our religious faith we get it right, the result is sublime. When, alas, we get it wrong, the result is torturous, bizarre, bigoted and everybody suffers. Including the very religion we profess to defend.

The best promoter of religious faith is good conduct. It has been said: “Your action speaks so loudly that I can’t hear what you are saying.” Bodily and verbal violence is not virtuous conduct by any religious measure. It is only too easy for me to react to the anger demonstrated last weekend with anger of my own. But anger begets anger. Our prayers must be for conduct which will build bridges which can connect us and bring us together.

I leave it to experts of the respective religions to expound the wise, rational, wholesome and virtuous exhortations found in their respective Sacred Books. It is critical that those who truly know their respective religions should speak up for the very survival of the Malaysian society.

For myself, in the after gloom of last weekend’s reminder of how fractious our Malaysian society has become, when rationality and religious calm were abandoned, I found solace in these sacred words which is exactly what our nation desperately needs:

“Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.”

(Letter of James 1.19-20, Holy Bible)

The preacher that is me is sorely tempted to elaborate on these wise sayings. But let me for once resist the temptation to add my own human words to these Holy Scripture which is more than capable of speaking for itself.